trines of tlie Christian faith. It certainly was so with Peter and the apostles, at this time.
(b.) We should also notice, that there is nothing man is so backward to see, as the sacrifice of the death of Christ, the sub- stitution, and the atonement. It is possible to be right about Christ's divinity and Messiahship, and yet be in the dark about His death.
(c.) We should notice how ignorant Christians often are of the state of others' souls. Peter never suspected any one of the twelve to be a false apostle. It is a fearful proof that Judas must have been, in all outward demeanour and profession, just hke the rest of the apostles.
70. — [Have not I chosen you twelve?] I do not think that the *' choosing" here spoken of, means anything more than selec- tion for office. The word is evidently used in this simple sense, in Luke vi. 13, — "Of them he chose twelve, whom he called apostles;" Acts vi. 5, — "They chose Stephen, a man full of faith ; " Acts xv. 22, — " It pleased the apostles, — to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch." I say confi- dently, that in each one of these cases, the Greek word rendered " chosen," the very same word that is used here, can mean no- thing more than "chosen or selected for an office." This I believe, with Poole. Henry, and Hutcheson, is the meaning here.
I disagree with AHbrd's remark, that "the selection of the twelve, was the consequence of the giving of them to Him by the Father," and that Christ's " selecting, and the Father's giving, and the Father's giving and drawing, do not exclude final falUng away." — This remark is built on the gratuitous assumption, that Christ's " choosing " here spoken of is the same as that " choosing unto salvation," which is the special privilege of believers. Of that " choosing unto salvation," our Lord speaks in another place, where He carefully draws the distinction between the true disciples and the false : — " I speak not of you all : I know whom I have chosen." (John xiii. 18.) Of that choosing unto salvation, Judas was not a partaker. Of the other choosing unto office, as in the verse before us, undoubtedly he was a partaker.
Burgon, and many others, agree with Alford, and dwell on tlie expression before us, as an apparent proof, that men "chosen to salvation" may fall away. But "their reasoning appears to me inconclusive.
Even Quesnel, the Eomanist commentator, remarks, " The being duly called to the ecclesiastical office is not sufficient, if a man live tot suitably to that holy vocation." Toletus, the Spanish Jesuit, says much the same.
421
[One of you is a devil] This is a singularly strong expres- sion, and gives an awfully vivid impression of the wickedness of Judas. Of course, lie was not literally and really " a devil," but a man. The meaning is, "one out of your number is so completely under the influence of the devil, such a servant ol the devil, that he deserves to be called nothing less than a devil." Our Lord, in another place, says of the wicked Jews, " Ye are of your father, the devil." (John viii. 44.) So Si". Paul says to Elymas, "Thou child of the devil." (Acts xiii. 10.) When we read at a later period, ''The devH having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, to betray him" (John xiii. 2), it must mean the final working out of a wicked purpose, which, under the influence of the devil^ Judas had long had in his heart.
Let us note, that even now, Judas is called " a devil," long before our Lord's betrayal and crucifixion. This helps to show that he never was a faithful disciple, even from the first.
Let us note, that the only other expression of our Lord's, which at all approaches the one before us in strength is the one which, on another occasion, our Lord applies to His zealous apostle Peter, — " Get thee behind me, Satan." (Matt. xvi. 23.) While we condemn the wickedness of Judas, let us not fotget that even a true-hearted apostle may so far err and be mistaken, that he needs to be sharply rebuked and called " Satan." A tho- roughly bad man is "a devil;" but even a good man may need to be called "Satan I"
Rollock observes, that Jesus never used so strong an expres- sion about His open enemies who went about to slay Him. It was a hypocrite and a false apostle, whom he called " a devil." Nothing is so wicked as false profession.
7L — [Ue spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon.] The word " Iscariot," according to some, means " a man of Kerioth." Ke- rioth was a town of Judah. (Josh. xv. 25.) — According to others, it means "a man oflssachar." — According to Lampe, and others, it is a Syriac word, meaning "the bearer of the purse." — We are told that "He had the bag." (John xiii. 29.)
It is remarkable, that St. John, four times in his Gospel, calls Judas " the son of Simon." We do not exactly know why, un- less it is that Simon was a person well-known by name, or that St. John wished to make it quite clear, that Judas Iscariot was not St. Jude, the faithful apostle and cousin of Christ, by naming his father. There is no proof whatever, that Judas was the son of " Simon the Ganaanite," the apostle; though it is somewhat curious, that in the list of apostles given by Matthew and Mark, Simon and Judas Iscariot are named in close juxta-position. (Matt. X. 4; Mark. iii. 18.)
[He it was that should betray him.] This would be more lite-
i22 EXPOSITORY THOUGHTS.
rally rendered, " He was about to betray Him." The expression seems to imply, that to betray such a master as Chris*, Avas so eminently a work of the devil, that the betrayer ought to be spoken of as " a devil."
The frequency of our Lord's warning=! and hints, addressed to Judas Iscariot, is very remarkable. Rollock observes, what an awful proof it is of the hardness of the heart, that a man bo WfiFUed should not be conscience-stricken and repent.
Date Due